A Proxy-Based, Entropy-Weighted Sustainability Scoring Framework for Mega Sporting Event Host Selection: Evidence from the 2029 Super Bowl and the 2029 Copa América

Ziqi Nian; Haodong Bai; Xi Tong; Zhangzheng Wang

doi:10.54097/wsxxne58

Authors

Ziqi Nian Guangzhou Zhixin High School, Guangzhou 51000, China
Haodong Bai Guangzhou Zhixin High School, Guangzhou 51000, China
Xi Tong Guangzhou Zhixin High School, Guangzhou 51000, China
Zhangzheng Wang Guangzhou Zhixin High School, Guangzhou 51000, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/wsxxne58

Keywords:

Mega-events; sustainability; entropy weight; host selection.

Abstract

Sports mega-events provide economic and social benefits; however, they can also concentrate environmental impacts, including (but not limited to) electricity demand, greenhouse gas emissions, venue waste (e.g., catering), and water demand. We develop a proxy-based, environment-focused host-selection framework. Using the entropy weight method, we compute objective weights for four burden categories based on prior research on Super Bowl events and similar single-day championship events. We then score and rank candidate hosts using matched city-level sustainability proxies and a weighted-sum model. In a 2029 Super Bowl scenario, Stanford ranks first among 19 candidate cities under the stated boundary conditions. We also extend the same pipeline to a multi-match tournament setting (2029 Copa América) using an expanded proxy set, under which Canada ranks first among candidate countries.

References

[1] Collins A, Jones C, Munday M. Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options? Tourism management, 2009, 30(6): 828-837. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.006

[2] Collins A, Flynn A, Munday M, Roberts A. Assessing the environmental consequences of major sporting events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final. Urban studies, 2007, 44(3): 457-476. https: //doi.org/10.1080/00420980601131878

[3] Saaty T L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 2008, 1(1): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

[4] Hwang C L, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9

[5] Shannon C E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 1948, 27 (3): 379-423; 27(4): 623-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x https: // doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x.

[6] Zou Z H, Yun Y, Sun J N. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental sciences, 2006, 18(5): 1020-1023. https: // doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6.

[7] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14064-1:2018 Greenhouse gases — Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2018. https: //www.iso.org/standard/66453.html.

[8] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2006. https: //www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.

[9] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2006. https: //www.iso.org/standard/38498.html.

[10] World Bank. World Development Indicators (WDI), World Bank DataBank. https: //databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.

[11] International Energy Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Data Explorer, 2025. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer.